What Non Conservative Positions Do You Hold? - Atheist Nexus2015-03-31T18:26:49Zhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/forum/topics/what-non-conservative-positions-do-you-hold?groupUrl=conservativeatheists&commentId=2182797%3AComment%3A2112015&xg_source=activity&groupId=2182797%3AGroup%3A660910&feed=yes&xn_auth=noEric, I find thoughtful your…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-05-14:2182797:Comment:22325952013-05-14T18:08:31.344Ztom sarbeckhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Eric, I find thoughtful your reply to Garrett.</p>
<p>I find part of it worthy of reply, your <em>Can you offer a non-religious reason for why I should be concerned about the lower class, middle class, or upper class?</em></p>
<p>What non-religious behavior checks that of <strong>upper class folk</strong>, especially when they have or use power?</p>
<p>Throughout history, the fear of assassination or revolution has checked their behavior. To minimize that fear, they have conditionally…</p>
<p>Eric, I find thoughtful your reply to Garrett.</p>
<p>I find part of it worthy of reply, your <em>Can you offer a non-religious reason for why I should be concerned about the lower class, middle class, or upper class?</em></p>
<p>What non-religious behavior checks that of <strong>upper class folk</strong>, especially when they have or use power?</p>
<p>Throughout history, the fear of assassination or revolution has checked their behavior. To minimize that fear, they have conditionally consented to democracy but in a variety of ways protect themselves from its consequences.</p>
<p></p> Michael, on June 4, 2012, pos…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2013-05-10:2182797:Comment:22306282013-05-10T12:06:02.948Ztom sarbeckhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/TomSarbeck
<p>Michael, on June 4, 2012, posted "Indeed, it's very hard to divide most issues into 'liberal' or 'conservative'."</p>
<p>I find it impossibly hard. Risking oversimplification, I divide issues into <em>progressive</em> and <em>conservative</em>. I will explain only the former; the latter is well understood.</p>
<p>Several people here have identified assisted suicide, legal pot, and other rights we do not now enjoy. They can and perhaps will be made real by libertarians or…</p>
<p>Michael, on June 4, 2012, posted "Indeed, it's very hard to divide most issues into 'liberal' or 'conservative'."</p>
<p>I find it impossibly hard. Risking oversimplification, I divide issues into <em>progressive</em> and <em>conservative</em>. I will explain only the former; the latter is well understood.</p>
<p>Several people here have identified assisted suicide, legal pot, and other rights we do not now enjoy. They can and perhaps will be made real by libertarians or progressives.</p>
<p></p> This has been a strange but i…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-02:2182797:Comment:21149292012-12-02T18:03:02.186ZJoe H...http://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/JHershfield
<p>This has been a strange but interesting discussion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My speculation on that point is that most men who marry but later come out of the closet don't do so until approaching middle age. Assuming the age difference between spouses is typical (not huge), then the wives of such men already would have had most of the kids they were going to have regardless of husband sexuality. Also, I want to add that it's my belief and supported by 'formerly gay' men on The Dr. Oz Show that…</p>
<p>This has been a strange but interesting discussion.</p>
<p> </p>
<p>My speculation on that point is that most men who marry but later come out of the closet don't do so until approaching middle age. Assuming the age difference between spouses is typical (not huge), then the wives of such men already would have had most of the kids they were going to have regardless of husband sexuality. Also, I want to add that it's my belief and supported by 'formerly gay' men on The Dr. Oz Show that not-always-heterosexual men marry women mainly to have kids. (Selfish jerks, in my opinion, but the women who marry them probably also share some blame.)</p>
<p> </p>
<p>Personally, I think the 'naturally' gay male percentage of the population probably will decline, or is already declining, regardless of gay marriage (which I don't support). Why? Because family size is shrinking, and gay males are more likely to be later-borns. The increasing visibility of gay males will mask any decline for a long time.</p> His theory is different than…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-02:2182797:Comment:21144822012-12-02T00:47:14.477ZEric Stubbshttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/EricStubbs
<p>His theory is different than mine, but mine is supported by his data: Birth rate among same-sex married couples is below sustainment levels and there is a very strong risk that that the relevant society will decline in population to the point of extinction.</p>
<p>If Americans are willing to take this risk, so be it. Unfortunately when that society disappears, it will happen without a sound. I guess I'm one of the few people alive today who cares that an entire demographic might disappear…</p>
<p>His theory is different than mine, but mine is supported by his data: Birth rate among same-sex married couples is below sustainment levels and there is a very strong risk that that the relevant society will decline in population to the point of extinction.</p>
<p>If Americans are willing to take this risk, so be it. Unfortunately when that society disappears, it will happen without a sound. I guess I'm one of the few people alive today who cares that an entire demographic might disappear within a few hundred years helped along by government policy.</p>
<p>Thanks to all who participated. I hope we can have similar discussions on other topics in the near future.</p> Furthermore, even if Jesse Be…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21142782012-12-01T18:25:26.962ZFrances Miriam januszhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/FrancesMiriamjanusz
Furthermore, even if Jesse Bering's speculation were right (which I'm extremely sceptical about, myself) his article only relates to the effect which SSM might have on the reproductive rates of society as a whole.<br />
We simply can't known what effect if any the reduction in the reproduction rate of one segment of society might have on the rest. For instance, heterosexual women whose reproductive lives have been interrupted by divorce after marriage to a gay man, might be more likely to remain…
Furthermore, even if Jesse Bering's speculation were right (which I'm extremely sceptical about, myself) his article only relates to the effect which SSM might have on the reproductive rates of society as a whole.<br />
We simply can't known what effect if any the reduction in the reproduction rate of one segment of society might have on the rest. For instance, heterosexual women whose reproductive lives have been interrupted by divorce after marriage to a gay man, might be more likely to remain married and have more children if they are not derailed by a doomed marriage to someone whose real interests lie elsewhere. Eric,
This isn't proof. Did…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21139942012-12-01T15:33:41.237ZFrances Miriam januszhttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/FrancesMiriamjanusz
Eric,<br />
<br />
This isn't proof. Did you miss this from the end of Jesse's article?<br />
<br />
"these are just my, admittedly, entirely speculative predictions for the decline of homosexuality as a direct result of the increasing legalization of gay marriage and the domestication of exclusively same-sex relationships"<br />
<br />
If you want tax breaks limited tonfamilies that actually have children, why don't you lobby for that? The SSM issue isba red herring.
Eric,<br />
<br />
This isn't proof. Did you miss this from the end of Jesse's article?<br />
<br />
"these are just my, admittedly, entirely speculative predictions for the decline of homosexuality as a direct result of the increasing legalization of gay marriage and the domestication of exclusively same-sex relationships"<br />
<br />
If you want tax breaks limited tonfamilies that actually have children, why don't you lobby for that? The SSM issue isba red herring. The End of Gays: Gay Marriage…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21140492012-12-01T15:05:19.833ZEric Stubbshttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/EricStubbs
<h1 class="postTitle" id="postTitle2"><a href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/" rel="nofollow" title="Permanent Link to The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population">The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...…</a></h1>
<h1 class="postTitle" id="postTitle2"></h1>
<h1 id="postTitle2" class="postTitle"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/" title="Permanent Link to The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population">The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...</a></h1>
<h1 id="postTitle2" class="postTitle"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/" title="Permanent Link to The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population">The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...</a></h1>
<h1 id="postTitle2" class="postTitle"><a rel="nofollow" href="http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bering-in-mind/2011/08/01/the-end-of-gays-gay-marriage-and-the-decline-of-the-homosexual-population/" title="Permanent Link to The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Population">The End of Gays: Gay Marriage and the Decline of the Homosexual Pop...</a></h1> It's not blind faith to NOT b…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21139092012-12-01T14:19:50.853ZJames Younthttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/JamesYount
<p>It's not blind faith to NOT believe in something that has no supporting evidence. You are using the same logic that a theist does. I have only had ONE question, where is your proof? You want to limit the rights of a group of individuals without any supporting evidence. Your assertion that SSM will result in population decline is a slippery slope fallacy that is based on no evidence. WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE ERIC STUBBS?</p>
<p>It's not blind faith to NOT believe in something that has no supporting evidence. You are using the same logic that a theist does. I have only had ONE question, where is your proof? You want to limit the rights of a group of individuals without any supporting evidence. Your assertion that SSM will result in population decline is a slippery slope fallacy that is based on no evidence. WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE ERIC STUBBS?</p> James, your blind faith is st…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21138542012-12-01T05:07:50.562ZEric Stubbshttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/EricStubbs
<p>James, your blind faith is stunning. Is it dogma or ego that drives you to your conclusion? What is your larger purpose so that I may understand? I have answered all your questions, you have answered none of mine. Let's give this Reason thing a chance.</p>
<p>James, your blind faith is stunning. Is it dogma or ego that drives you to your conclusion? What is your larger purpose so that I may understand? I have answered all your questions, you have answered none of mine. Let's give this Reason thing a chance.</p> Slippery slope fallacies abou…tag:www.atheistnexus.org,2012-12-01:2182797:Comment:21135172012-12-01T04:10:08.494ZJames Younthttp://www.atheistnexus.org/profile/JamesYount
<p>Slippery slope fallacies abound here.</p>
<p>Slippery slope fallacies abound here.</p>